The entire election process in the U.S. does not produce the best person to lead the nation. Starting the primary cycle with Iowa and New Hampshire are examples of this.
Nobody, at least originally – it was an accident of history.
The Iowa caucuses have been around since the 1800s but only began to rise to their current prominence after the 1968 election, when Democrats shook up their nominating process in the aftermath of a chaotic contest.
Looking at the calendar – and the availability of hotel rooms in Des Moines – led Democratic Party leaders in Iowa to move the caucuses back so that they wound up as the first presidential vote in the country.
Jimmy Carter used the new calendar as a springboard to the presidency in 1976, and the Hawkeye State’s position has stayed locked in ever since.
New Hampshire has had a first-in-the-nation primary since 1916, but it first attracted serious attention in 1952, when a strong showing by Dwight Eisenhower helped convince him to actively seek the White House.
In 1976 Jimmy Carter’s campaign also played a key role in cementing the Granite State’s status, as he rode momentum out of his Iowa showing to win in New Hampshire, too.
“In 1976, Carter created the mythology of the early states, the idea that you can come out of nowhere – ‘Jimmy who?’ – and campaign and have the right message and win,” Pindell says. “He won Iowa and New Hampshire, and then everything since then has been bananas.”
After some arguing in the 1970s and early ’80s over who should go first, party leaders in the two states reached an agreement that would allow Iowa to hold its first-in-the-nation caucus eight days before New Hampshire holds its first-in-the-nation primary. And the deal has stuck.
“Basically, we Americans have outsourced our first look at the field to the 1.4% of the American population that lives in Iowa and New Hampshire,” writes Elaine Kamarck, a Brookings Institution scholar.
~
WPRI
Q&A: Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get to vote first?
Stanti is like so many old people. They know that their argument is lost, but they still hold onto their position for pride. It’s just lame human nature.
dumbest statement I heard in Iowa was they’ve given Trump so much crap I feel owe him what you do owe him he never gave a crap for anybody except himself
The dude from FL Premium Member 9 months ago
Scary and shameless Ron is still in!
pschearer Premium Member 9 months ago
It seems Iowans don’t have a good record selecting winners. That gives me hope.
mourdac Premium Member 9 months ago
The entire election process in the U.S. does not produce the best person to lead the nation. Starting the primary cycle with Iowa and New Hampshire are examples of this.
RobinHood 9 months ago
Voters having free will, not a popular idea here.
Silly Season 9 months ago
Who chose Iowa and New Hampshire to go first?
Nobody, at least originally – it was an accident of history.
The Iowa caucuses have been around since the 1800s but only began to rise to their current prominence after the 1968 election, when Democrats shook up their nominating process in the aftermath of a chaotic contest.
Looking at the calendar – and the availability of hotel rooms in Des Moines – led Democratic Party leaders in Iowa to move the caucuses back so that they wound up as the first presidential vote in the country.
Jimmy Carter used the new calendar as a springboard to the presidency in 1976, and the Hawkeye State’s position has stayed locked in ever since.
New Hampshire has had a first-in-the-nation primary since 1916, but it first attracted serious attention in 1952, when a strong showing by Dwight Eisenhower helped convince him to actively seek the White House.
In 1976 Jimmy Carter’s campaign also played a key role in cementing the Granite State’s status, as he rode momentum out of his Iowa showing to win in New Hampshire, too.
“In 1976, Carter created the mythology of the early states, the idea that you can come out of nowhere – ‘Jimmy who?’ – and campaign and have the right message and win,” Pindell says. “He won Iowa and New Hampshire, and then everything since then has been bananas.”
After some arguing in the 1970s and early ’80s over who should go first, party leaders in the two states reached an agreement that would allow Iowa to hold its first-in-the-nation caucus eight days before New Hampshire holds its first-in-the-nation primary. And the deal has stuck.
“Basically, we Americans have outsourced our first look at the field to the 1.4% of the American population that lives in Iowa and New Hampshire,” writes Elaine Kamarck, a Brookings Institution scholar.
~
WPRI
Q&A: Why do Iowa and New Hampshire get to vote first?
Radish the wordsmith 9 months ago
Republicans voted for lying traitor criminal Trump to destroy freedom in the USA.
rossevrymn 9 months ago
Stanti is like so many old people. They know that their argument is lost, but they still hold onto their position for pride. It’s just lame human nature.
rlaker22j 9 months ago
dumbest statement I heard in Iowa was they’ve given Trump so much crap I feel owe him what you do owe him he never gave a crap for anybody except himself
christelisbetty 9 months ago
(((YAWN)))